Obama seizes N.M. land for national monument in Bundy-like showdown

originally posted by: Phoenix
Most of the western half of this country and many in the Eastern portion are incensed at the Bundy situation and the Texas BLM brou ha ha on the Red
River plus many recent and not so recent stories on landowners getting severely treated by various agencies of the federal government.

Do you have a link?

I have to believe western ranchers at this point are justified if they express a feeling that the federal government is at war with them - its a
feeling I'd sympathize with.

They've been getting free feed for their cattle for YEARS and now it's being taken away. Of course they're going to be upset.

I really don't have a problem with this. We need to protect our forests and other natural areas. Mass urbanization is destroying the country and as
Benevolent Heretic showed, most of the state is on board with this decision. So what's the problem? Not everything Obama does has to be hated and
despised. He can make good decisions too.

By the way, if it helps drugs traffickers get into their product into the country, good, more support to end the war on drugs. Whatever shows the
public that it is terrible for the American people quicker.

Sorry just because they will no longer be allowed to use motorized vehicles on the land isn't land grabbing. People will still be allowed to go on
the land. Did you ever stop to think one reason for this is because of idiots on atv's tearing up the land by making new trails where they shouldn't
be? If the government was to take this land and then say no one is allowed on it then it would be a land grab but they aren't doing that are
they?

If you are a rancher trucking water to a cattle tank it is. Just like most other subjects you strongly support the government position on - your
initial issue such as off trail ATV use is couched in truth, it is the draconian enforcement measures instituted by the federal government and blindly
supported by many that's a problem. In the case of ATV users the few who violate the rules should be punished to full extent, just like gun abusers
or other individual law breakers. The propensity of government to punish those who follow the law along with the abusers is wrong.

New Mexico’s representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre
monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate. - See more at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have not been to the Organ Mountains. I appreciate that you're not particularly taken with them but maybe the local communities have a different
opinion and are hoping to encourage more tourism?

As for the issue of grazing — grazing is permitted at a large number of national monuments. The BLM, FS, and NPS oversee something like 250,000,000
acres of grazing land combined. Do you have any evidence, other than a statement that local rancher's have expressed concerns, that ranchers will be
unduly impacted?

That's from YOUR source. The original poll taken of NM voters opinions was about the entire 500,000 acres.

Like I said polls are not reliable IMHO due manipulations in posing questions, sampling and such.

If I asked in a poll "would you be for free ice cream for all" the answer is obvious. If in turn I asked "would you be in favor of longer working
hours" the answer is obvious. I'm not a fan of polls for this reason and you'll rarely see one cited by me.

My concerns are growth of the federal government in scope, power, reach and authority in areas not already existing - in fact I'd be very comfortable
with a massive reduction.

Haven't you noticed most everything it touches turns out badly or corrupted in the end.

There was no land grab at the Bundy ranch just as there was no land grab in Texas either. First the land didn't belong to Bundy and in Texas the land
running along the Red River has belonged to the government since the 1800's. In the Texas thread I linked the case showing that the land was federal
land.

New Mexico’s representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre
monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate.

If Obama's is ten times that amount, that is five hundred thousand square acres which is a Whooping - 781.25 square MILES !!

What the heck kind of monument is going to take 781.25 sq miles of space? Looks to me like they want all the land they can get.. possibly for oil and
gas but i'm just guessing.

You don't believe in national parks and monuments? I'd like to add my face to Mt. Rushmore, are you going to support that? Maybe Yellowstone would be
better without all those trees? Would you fight for my right to start a logging company and deforest a few hundred square miles in Yellowstone for my
personal profit? Maybe I could become a rancher and graze my herd at your local park?

Have you been in the Organ Mountains before? There's absolutely nothing unique about them when compared to the dozens of other volcanic "spurdaps" on
either side of the Rio Grande Rift. The feds could next declare Cook's Peak, the Floridas, Red Mountain, and Black Mountain in Luna County 'National
Monuments' for the same rationale their using here. All of those have cattle grazing on them, too. Also, unless this has changed in the past 12
years, the state of New Mexico owns a state park in this area of the Organs. That ownership is now moot as I assume the BLM will alter their land
rights, too. (I'm assuming they'll use the State Park area as the Nat. Monument headquarters as it is conveniently located and already developed at
the state park.

If grazing was allowed before it became a national monument then it will be allowed after it becomes one. Unless harmful grazing is occurring in which
the ranchers permits would have been cancelled regardless if it was made into a monument or not.

I'm thinking this doesn't reach 'Bundy Level'. And I'm hearing that this will raise the number of illegals coming into the country, giving them
safe places to hide and traffic .... but I haven't seen any info supporting that. Can someone who thinks that please post it so I can read it?
Otherwise, at this point I have to go with this being a 'protect some pretty mountains' thing and not a big land grab thing.

originally posted by: buster2010
If grazing was allowed before it became a national monument then it will be allowed after it becomes one.

You're right.

"Industrial uses – oil, gas, mining – things like that will be prohibited,” he points out. “And the area will be protected for traditional
uses including grazing, but also recreation, and obviously the wildlife and habitat and biodiversity, and all those important resources as
well."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.